ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: non-2119

2011-08-31 11:27:17
Isn't it already incorporated in Section 3 of 2119bis:

    When it is not appropriate to use the conformance terms, authors can
    use a variety of alternative words and phrases, such as: "need to" or
    "mandatory" instead of "MUST"; "ought to" or "strongly encouraged"
    instead of "SHOULD"; and "might" or "discretionary" instead of "MAY".
    To prevent confusion, authors ought to use these alternative words
    and phrases instead of the lowercase versions of the conformance
    terms, and to use the conformance terms only in their uppercase
    versions.

Mykyta

31.08.2011 18:10, Tony Hansen wrote:
While 2119 is being discussed, I thought I'd mention a small I-D that Dave Crocker and I wrote on terminology that might be used in places where 2119 ought not apply. It's

    Non-Normative Synonyms in RFCs
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-01

Thoughts on this draft would be appreciated as well.

    Tony Hansen
    tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com

On 8/31/2011 9:28 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
I've been traveling so have not had a chance to do anything but watch
the discussion on a RFC 2119 update.

a few thoughts

1/ I am far from convinced that there is a need to update RFC 2119
       there is a bug in the boilerplate (as has been mentioned)
       and some people seem to have a hard time understanding what
       (to me) seem like clear descriptions of (for example) MUST&
       SHOULD - but the issues do not seem serious enough to warrant
       replacing what is, basically, a simple dictionary&  usage
       constraint

2/ it seems like a very Bad Idea to move 2119 to historic- we move
      RFCs to historic when no one uses them or when they are a Bad
      Idea in light of updated technology - I do not think that makes
      much sense in this case - in addition it makes the status of RFCs
      that have a normative reference to a historic document a bit
      funky - if an update is actually needed there is no reason that
      I can come up with that it could not just be that -- an update

3/ I doubt that I'll ever catch up with Postel as the most referenced
      RFC author so that is not a consideration (for me)

I wrote RFC 2119 (most using text from RFC 1122) because people were
using MUST without saying what they meant, an update, if people think
that one is actually needed, will serve that purpose as well as 2119 has.

When I posted the original ID it was pointed out that I should also
address when such terms should be used (i.e. try to limit the use to
where it actually made sense protocol-wise) - I tried to do that but
that part may not have been as successful as it might have been - any
update might try to be clearer in this area that RFC 2119 is.

Scott


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>